IMO anyone buying a MFJ product should consider it a semi built Kit and treat it as such. If you look at it that way then you wont get upset.

I guess that would be OK if they noted this prominently in their catalog or on their site. "Be aware that these products may have to be adjusted to ensure proper operation; Some assembly may be required."

I would hazard a guess that the discrepancy between people who buy the same MFJ product and have widely differing results is due to the manufacturing process.

You can have a great engineer design a nice product on paper, but if it isn't manufactured with quality standards it will not present the same experience to all customers. That's what quality control is for - to make sure the product works the same for every customer.

If MFJ had to sell to a major retailers such as Walmart, Costco, Amazon, Sears etc. would never survive. The return rate under products would be much greater than a major retailer would or could live with

Randy, what IS the return rate on MFJ products? I'm sure you wouldn't make such a statement unless you knew what the return rate actually is, since otherwise it would be a nasty slur based on anecdote, on nothing but hearsay and a handful of complainers on websites. So tell us, Randy, what is MFJ's actual return rate?

If MFJ had to sell to a major retailers such as Walmart, Costco, Amazon, Sears etc. would never survive. The return rate under products would be much greater than a major retailer would or could live with

Randy, what IS the return rate on MFJ products? I'm sure you wouldn't make such a statement unless you knew what the return rate actually is, since otherwise it would be a nasty slur based on anecdote, on nothing but hearsay and a handful of complainers on websites. So tell us, Randy, what is MFJ's actual return rate?

I would say it's more of a judgement based upon observations made by the ham community, and not a nasty slur. Maybe MFJ will tell us if we ask, what their return rate is.

.......... I'm sure you wouldn't make such a statement unless you knew what the return rate actually is, since otherwise it would be a nasty slur based on anecdote, on nothing but hearsay and a handful of complainers on websites.......

Yup, it is all just a vast conspiracy against MFJ/Ameritron by all those "buy USA" haters. They all just spend their waking hours making up all those false negative and "0" reviews, and trying to put down a US Company. Yup, just a vast conspiracy with no basis in fact, and all in those hundreds (handful) of hateful folks imaginations'.

Yup, just a vast conspiracy with no basis in fact, and all in those hundreds (handful) of hateful folks imaginations'.

John, I'm just saying, if somebody wants to tell us that "MFJ's return rate would be considered excessive at [other manufacturer]," that person really SHOULD know what MFJ's return rate is. How can anybody say it's too high without knowing what it actually is? There are a bunch of people who b1tch about MFJ online, but satisfied customers presumably comment much less often--so right now we have no DATA, we don't KNOW what MFJ's return rate is. And claiming it's "too high" without any idea of what it actually IS, is irresponsible IMO. Get the data, and THEN we can talk about it. Isn't that reasonable? Otherwise it's an uninformed guess, and possibly even defamatory.

He criticized someone for allegedly failing to back up a claim with evidence,

Did they say "presumably" when they made a claim?

Quote

and then failed to do the same for his claim. "Presumably" isn't an escape hatch for an assertion with nothing behind it.

Sure it is. If you preface your assertion with that word, that takes care of it. You are stating you don't have evidence and that you are not certain. If you don't use that word, then you need to provide evidence. See, that's what different words are in the dictionary for, to make to most use of our language.

He criticized someone for allegedly failing to back up a claim with evidence,

Did they say "presumably" when they made a claim?

Quote

and then failed to do the same for his claim. "Presumably" isn't an escape hatch for an assertion with nothing behind it.

Sure it is. If you preface your assertion with that word, that takes care of it. You are stating you don't have evidence and that you are not certain. If you don't use that word, then you need to provide evidence. See, that's what different words are in the dictionary for, to make to most use of our language.

If I said, "N5INP was raised by hoboes, presumably," you'd have every right to object, with or without the "presumably."

If I said, "N5INP was raised by hoboes, presumably," you'd have every right to object, with or without the "presumably."

Let me spell it out for you and the gentle readers.

Case 1:

N5INP was raised by hobos.

^^^ That is a direct assertion without qualifiers. You have no language letting the audience know you are not sure. In fact, you are making a direct assertion that has to be backed up by evidence.

Case 2:

N5INP was presumably raised by hobos

That is a statement of opinion with a qualifier that it is (from the definition) "not known for certain". In this case you have let the audience know you are not sure.

I don't know what is so hard about this.

You are missing an essential point. You are arguing that by saying, "I believe this is very likely but not known for certain" that you are absolved of any responsibility to prove that whatever you're claiming is very likely. But that's not the way things work in the real world, where a great many things aren't completely certain, but we still have to back up our claims, tentative as they may be, with evidence. Or at least we should, especially if we've asked others to back up their claims.

We do agree about one thing: I don't see what's so hard about this, either.

You are missing an essential point. You are arguing that by saying, "I believe this is very likely but not known for certain" that you are absolved of any responsibility to prove that whatever you're claiming is very likely.

There are claims and there are claims. Claims of fact are one thing. Claims of opinion are quite another. An opinion is not a statement of fact. It can be simply one's presumption based on their own experience in life. That's why it's stated as such if the claim is not being asserted as a direct assertion of factual truth.

Like this: I presume you will not be able to understand what I'm telling you here.

It's simply my opinion based on the conversation. It may be wrong, I don't claim otherwise, but I do claim that my opinion is that you won't get it.

Heck, this forum would be very empty if all the presumptions in all the posts were challenged and had to be backed up with facts to the degree you are asserting.

You are missing an essential point. You are arguing that by saying, "I believe this is very likely but not known for certain" that you are absolved of any responsibility to prove that whatever you're claiming is very likely.

There are claims and there are claims. Claims of fact are one thing. Claims of opinion are quite another. An opinion is not a statement of fact. It can be simply one's presumption based on their own experience in life. That's why it's stated as such if the claim is not being asserted as a direct assertion of factual truth.

Like this: I presume you will not be able to understand what I'm telling you here.

It's simply my opinion based on the conversation. It may be wrong, I don't claim otherwise, but I do claim that my opinion is that you won't get it.

Well, you're right, sort of, in that you're wrong. I understand what you're saying. I just think you're woefully mistaken. First you argued that the use of the word "presumably" precluded a need for factual backup. Now you're arguing that the statement of an opinion precludes the need for facts. I think you're wrong on both counts.

As for factual backup of opinions, I do think it's a good idea, but you'll notice that I haven't made a point of challenging every fact-free post made on this thread or others (and there's no lack of them to challenge). You're forgetting the point of my initial post. This back-and-forth began because someone demanded that someone else produce facts to back up an opinion, and then failed to produce facts to back up their opinion. That's when you chimed in with the "presumably" stuff, and off we went. So if you want to explain why someone should demand facts of others while eschewing them in his own argument, go ahead, but you've pretty much convinced me that your opinions on opinions are of no interest to me.

Copyright 2000-2019 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement